That’s bad timing for false teacher Chuck Currie, who recently posted a bit about climate change. Just one more reason even false teachers should be more careful on political topics. Haven’t heard from Chuck on the Christ-driven OWS movement lately, either. He and the other Lefties will jump off the bandwagon (or have already, like Pelosi) much more quietly than they jumped on it.
Significant global warming / global climate change isn’t true, but if it was, it wouldn’t necessarily be bad.
Even if it was true and bad, we don’t have evidence that humans are causing it
Even if it was true and bad and true that humans were causing it, it still doesn’t mean we can make China and the rest of the world change things to make a difference.
Oh, and did I mention the hypocrites like Al Gore living in multiple mansions, flying personal jets, fathering 4 children, etc., who make hundreds of millions off of this scam, all the while telling you not to do those things?
Why does the Leftist skepticism disappear with those who want to give the government a permanent and unlimited blank check to control your lives?
Why do these people exhibit such transparent coveting? Remember, coveting isn’t just wanting more, it is wanting to have more than others. Think about all the politicians and profiteers who have so much yet don’t want the poor of the world to improve their lot in life.
Oh, but X% (insert really big number for “X”) of “real” scientists agree about global warming!! Yes, they say that because they know their careers will be destroyed if they don’t.
From Ann Coulter:
CRU was regularly cited as the leading authority on “global climate analysis” — including by the very news outlets that are burying the current scandal, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. The CRU alone received more than $23 million in taxpayer funds for its work on global warming.
. . .
Most disturbingly, the CRU-affiliated “scientists” were caught red-handed conspiring to kill the careers and reputations of scientists who dissented from the religion of global warming. Indignant that scientific journals were publishing papers skeptical of global warming, the cult members plotted to get editors ousted and the publications discredited.
This video is a great overview of the issue. Get educated, folks!
Hat tip: Red State
We see a lot of misleading headlines and editorial cartoons equating “extreme” weather with human caused global warming / global climate change. It is pure non sequitur. We have a name for changes in temperature, rainfall, storms, etc.: Weather. It can be unpredictable. You may have noticed that people talk about it a lot, and did so long before Al Gore came along with his hypocritical money machine.
For starters, consider that if there are 10 tornadoes hitting remote areas, you’ll heard about it once. If the same tornadoes happen to hit more populated areas, you’ll heard about it for months. But the weather wasn’t different, just the locations where it hit.
See How to mislead with slippery language : Stop The ACLU for more examples of wordplay and data games used to advance the global climate change agenda.
“NOAA Makes It Official: 2011 Among Most Extreme Weather Years in History
Just past the halfway point, 2011 has already seen eight weather-related disasters in the U.S. that caused more than $1 billion in damages
The devastating string of tornadoes, droughts, wildfires and floods that hit the United States this spring marks 2011 as one of the most extreme years on record, according to a new federal analysis.”
The key, of course, is that little word “among” and his friend “one of”. To put some flesh on Mr. “among”, consider 1934:
All regions of the country were over 100 degrees.
80% of the US was experiencing drought.
ELECTRIC cars could produce higher emissions over their lifetimes than petrol equivalents because of the energy consumed in making their batteries, a study has found.
An electric car owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.
The British study, which is the first analysis of the full lifetime emissions of electric cars covering manufacturing, driving and disposal, undermines the case for tackling climate change by the rapid introduction of electric cars.
As someone who is serious about reducing, reusing and recyling and who drives a 30+ mpg car, I find the Green movement to be a big political power grab that destroys jobs and reduces your spending power. My lifestyle is much more green than the professional climahypocrites.
It is sad that so many people have been duped by the global warming / global climate change fraud. Think of the millions of kids told by their trusted teachers that Al Gore had it right in his movie. How many of those teachers ever went back to correct what they children learned?
I appreciated RightKlik‘s comments on the Human-caused Global Warming / Global Climate Change: Still a hoax by any name post so much that I wanted to highlight them here. I urge you to keep these handy to politely ask the climate alarmists you meet. Oh, and read his blog, too. Consistently good stuff.
Too bad the mainstream media doesn’t ask questions like this. Instead, expect them to just ask “gotcha” questions to make Republicans look like they are environment-hating baby seal killers.
For anyone fortunate enough to ask a politician/candidate at a town hall meeting, here are a few suggested questions:
How cool do you want the world to be? What is the ideal temperature for the earth?
What are the criteria for determining the ideal temperature of the earth?
Would a modest increase in the temperature of the planet necessarily be bad? Are there any potential benefits?
How can we ensure that efforts to stabilize the earth’s temperature don’t backfire, resulting in a larger-than-intended drop in the earth’s average temperature?
At what temperature would the earth be too cold?
Can you be sure that reductions in CO2 emissions will result in a significant and helpful change in temperatures?
What if industrial and automotive CO2 emissions are cut to nearly zero and the earth continues to warm…what do we do then?
Some have said that “It’s not called American warming, it’s called global warming.” What if heavily industrialized nations manage to make painful cuts in CO2 emissions only to see those cuts dwarfed by increases in emissions by China and other developing economies?
How long should man try to control the world’s average temperature?
A. For the next hundred years?
B. For the next thousand years?
Can we be absolutely confident that global climate changes aren’t mostly the result of that giant fireball in the sky ― you know ― the sun?
Scientists are very good at using statistical analysis to calculate certainty. Approximately how certain are we that we have the correct answers to global warming questions?
A. 50 percent?
B. 80 percent?
C. 95 percent?
I would emphasize the question above about how to deal with countries that don’t reduce emissions. What should we do, go to war with them until they do as we say?
And I would add this question: Will there ever be a time when we won’t need the government to micro-manage all of our personal energy consumption, or is this unlimited power grab going to be permanent?
Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.
The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case forglobal sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.
If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.
Also ask yourself why this will be one of the few promises Obama will keep:
Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.
And electricity prices won’t just hurt one of your bills. The impact of higher energy costs will impact nearly every element of the economy.
Have you had a lot of fun watching the price of gasoline shoot out of sight this year at the pump? That will be just the appetizer. Thanks to new regulations from the Obama administration, power companies will shut down a significant number of coal-fired plants by 2014, and without any other reliable sources of mass-produced electricity, consumers will see their bills go up as much as 60% (via Instapundit andNewsalert):
Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years.
The reason: Pending environmental regulations will make coal-fired generating plants, which produce about half the nation’s electricity, more expensive to operate. Many are expected to be shuttered.
The increases are expected to begin to appear in 2014, and policymakers already are scrambling to find cheap and reliable alternative power sources. If they are unsuccessful, consumers can expect further increases as more expensive forms of generation take on a greater share of the electricity load.
Elections matter, folks. A radical leftist community organizer was elected Senator and then President and this is all part of his plan: More government control of everything.
You’d think they’d be alarmed that so many companies are claiming they’ll stop providing healthcare to employees when ObamNeycare is fully implemented, but you’d be wrong. That is exactly what they want: More decisions controlled by the government. Because you can totally trust them to have your long-term best interests at heart, right?
(The greatest is Darwinian evolution, and the 2nd greatest is Global Warming / Global Climate Change. Both have a lot of similarities in how the hoaxes are perpetuated.)
See Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science. Don’t miss the quote in bold below. This hoax is costing us countless jobs and creating higher energy prices. These things are quickly and easily fixable, but not with the current administration. They are advancing an unprecedented and unlimited power grab over the economy, and doing great harm to the nation.
Read the whole article. Follow the money. Don’t let them fool you.
David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine. He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:
“The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.”
And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public.
“The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.”
Hat tip: Matthew from Facebook